PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Electroacupuncture (EA) is commonly employed for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), whereas laser acupuncture (LA) seems to offer a safer and more convenient alternative. Nevertheless, transitioning from EA to LA requires evidence. This study aims to compare their clinical efficacy and safety.
UNASSIGNED: A randomized single-blind controlled trial was conducted on 76 CTS patients, with 38 patients assigned to receive EA (EA group) and 38 assigned to receive LA (LA group). Acupoints selected for both groups included PC4, PC6, PC7, PC8, LI4, LI10, LI11, HT3, HT7, and LU10. The intervention consisted of 20 sessions over 4 weeks. Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores, patients\' satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: The LA group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in SSS and FSS scores than the EA group, with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of -4.29 (-5.40 to -3.18) and -0.73 (-1.24 to -0.24), respectively, after 4 weeks of treatment. Complete symptom, functional recovery, and both were also significantly better in the LA group (relative risks [RR] [95% CI]: 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], 1.58 [1.24 to 2.02], and 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], respectively). Overall treatment effectiveness and satisfaction levels were notably higher in the LA group. Six patients experienced AEs in the EA group, whereas no AEs were reported in the LA group.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, the findings indicate that LA may offer a safer and more effective alternative to EA. Further studies with longer follow-up periods and assessment of electrodiagnostic changes after intervention are needed.
UNASSIGNED: A randomized single-blind controlled trial was conducted on 76 CTS patients, with 38 patients assigned to receive EA (EA group) and 38 assigned to receive LA (LA group). Acupoints selected for both groups included PC4, PC6, PC7, PC8, LI4, LI10, LI11, HT3, HT7, and LU10. The intervention consisted of 20 sessions over 4 weeks. Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores, patients\' satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: The LA group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in SSS and FSS scores than the EA group, with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of -4.29 (-5.40 to -3.18) and -0.73 (-1.24 to -0.24), respectively, after 4 weeks of treatment. Complete symptom, functional recovery, and both were also significantly better in the LA group (relative risks [RR] [95% CI]: 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], 1.58 [1.24 to 2.02], and 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], respectively). Overall treatment effectiveness and satisfaction levels were notably higher in the LA group. Six patients experienced AEs in the EA group, whereas no AEs were reported in the LA group.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, the findings indicate that LA may offer a safer and more effective alternative to EA. Further studies with longer follow-up periods and assessment of electrodiagnostic changes after intervention are needed.
摘要：
■电针（EA）通常用于腕管综合征（CTS），而激光针灸（LA）似乎提供了一种更安全，更方便的选择。然而，从EA过渡到LA需要证据。本研究旨在比较其临床疗效和安全性。
■对76名CTS患者进行了一项随机单盲对照试验，38例患者接受EA（EA组），38例患者接受LA（LA组）。两组选择的穴位包括PC4、PC6、PC7、PC8、LI4、LI10、LI11、HT3、HT7和LU10。干预包括为期4周的20次会议。症状严重程度量表（SSS）和功能状态量表（FSS）评分，患者满意度，并记录不良事件（AE）。
■与EA组相比，LA组的SSS和FSS评分下降幅度明显更大，平均差(MD)和95%置信区间(95%CI)为-4.29(-5.40至-3.18)和-0.73(-1.24至-0.24)，分别,治疗4周后。完全症状，功能恢复，并且两者在LA组中也显着更好（相对风险[RR][95％CI]：14.00[1.94至101.22]，1.58[1.24to2.02],和14.00[1.94至101.22]，分别)。LA组的总体治疗效果和满意度明显较高。EA组中有6名患者出现AE，而LA组未报告AE。
■在这项研究中，研究结果表明,LA可能为EA提供更安全、更有效的替代方案.需要进行更长的随访时间的进一步研究，并评估干预后的电诊断变化。
■对76名CTS患者进行了一项随机单盲对照试验，38例患者接受EA（EA组），38例患者接受LA（LA组）。两组选择的穴位包括PC4、PC6、PC7、PC8、LI4、LI10、LI11、HT3、HT7和LU10。干预包括为期4周的20次会议。症状严重程度量表（SSS）和功能状态量表（FSS）评分，患者满意度，并记录不良事件（AE）。
■与EA组相比，LA组的SSS和FSS评分下降幅度明显更大，平均差(MD)和95%置信区间(95%CI)为-4.29(-5.40至-3.18)和-0.73(-1.24至-0.24)，分别,治疗4周后。完全症状，功能恢复，并且两者在LA组中也显着更好（相对风险[RR][95％CI]：14.00[1.94至101.22]，1.58[1.24to2.02],和14.00[1.94至101.22]，分别)。LA组的总体治疗效果和满意度明显较高。EA组中有6名患者出现AE，而LA组未报告AE。
■在这项研究中，研究结果表明,LA可能为EA提供更安全、更有效的替代方案.需要进行更长的随访时间的进一步研究，并评估干预后的电诊断变化。
